# Kabede v. California Governors Parole Board Hearing Dept.

> District Court, N.D. California · April 7, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071041

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 7, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071041

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WONDIYRAD KABEDE,
11 Case No. 21-05366 EJD (PR)
Petitioner,
12 ORDER OF TRANSFER
v.
13
CA GOVERNOR’S PAROLE BOARD
14
HEARING DEP’T, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16

17
18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of parole on January 9, 2020. Dkt.
20 No. 15 at 4, 25. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to
21 amend, specifically with regards to the exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Dkt. No. 14.
22 Petitioner filed an amended petition. Dkt. No. 15.
23 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the
24 district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have
25 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or
26 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 31 F.Supp. 767, 768
27 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the
1 || parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See
2 || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
3 Here, Petitioner is challenging the denial of parole. See supra at 1. Petitioner is
4 || currently confined at the California Health Care Facility in San Joaquin County. Dkt. 15 at
5 || 1. San Joaquin County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28
6 || U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, venue properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28
7 || U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
g || Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the
19 || Eastern District of California.
11 IT ISSO ORDERED.
q (12 || Dated: _ April 72002 au
5 1 EDWARD J. DAVILA
3 United States District Judge

z 15
16

2 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071041. Public record. Not legal advice.